Centering race in procedural justice theory: Structural racism and the under- and overpolicing of Black communities.

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Law and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1037/lhb0000524
Jonathan Jackson, Tasseli McKay, Leonidas Cheliotis, Ben Bradford, Adam Fine, Rick Trinkner
{"title":"Centering race in procedural justice theory: Structural racism and the under- and overpolicing of Black communities.","authors":"Jonathan Jackson,&nbsp;Tasseli McKay,&nbsp;Leonidas Cheliotis,&nbsp;Ben Bradford,&nbsp;Adam Fine,&nbsp;Rick Trinkner","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We assessed the factors that legitimized the police in the United States at an important moment of history, just after the police killing of George Floyd in 2020. We also evaluated one way of incorporating perceptions of systemic racism into procedural justice theory.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We tested two primary hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that perceptions of police procedural justice, distributive justice, and bounded authority were important to the legitimization of the police. The second hypothesis was that perceptions of the under- and overpolicing of Black communities also mattered to the delegitimization of the institution, especially for people who identified with the Black Lives Matter movement.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A cross-sectional quota sample survey of 1,500 U.S. residents was conducted in June 2020. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling, and latent moderated structural equation modeling.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>People who viewed the police as legitimate also tended to believe that police treated people with respect and dignity, made decisions in unbiased ways, fairly allocated their finite resources across groups in society, and respected the limits of their rightful authority. Moreover, people who believed that Black communities were underpoliced and overpoliced also tended to question the legitimacy of the police, especially if they identified with the Black Lives Matter movement. These results held among Black and White study participants alike.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>At the time of the study, systemic racism in policing may have delegitimized the institution in a way that transcended the factors that procedural justice theory focuses on, such as procedural justice. This was especially so for individuals who identified with a social movement, Black Lives Matter, that had an extremely high profile in 2020. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"47 1","pages":"68-82"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000524","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objective: We assessed the factors that legitimized the police in the United States at an important moment of history, just after the police killing of George Floyd in 2020. We also evaluated one way of incorporating perceptions of systemic racism into procedural justice theory.

Hypotheses: We tested two primary hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that perceptions of police procedural justice, distributive justice, and bounded authority were important to the legitimization of the police. The second hypothesis was that perceptions of the under- and overpolicing of Black communities also mattered to the delegitimization of the institution, especially for people who identified with the Black Lives Matter movement.

Method: A cross-sectional quota sample survey of 1,500 U.S. residents was conducted in June 2020. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling, and latent moderated structural equation modeling.

Results: People who viewed the police as legitimate also tended to believe that police treated people with respect and dignity, made decisions in unbiased ways, fairly allocated their finite resources across groups in society, and respected the limits of their rightful authority. Moreover, people who believed that Black communities were underpoliced and overpoliced also tended to question the legitimacy of the police, especially if they identified with the Black Lives Matter movement. These results held among Black and White study participants alike.

Conclusions: At the time of the study, systemic racism in policing may have delegitimized the institution in a way that transcended the factors that procedural justice theory focuses on, such as procedural justice. This was especially so for individuals who identified with a social movement, Black Lives Matter, that had an extremely high profile in 2020. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
程序正义理论中以种族为中心:结构性种族主义与黑人社区的监管不足和过度。
目的:我们评估了在一个重要的历史时刻,就在2020年乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)被警察杀害之后,美国警察合法化的因素。我们还评估了将系统性种族主义观念纳入程序正义理论的一种方法。假设:我们检验了两个主要假设。第一个假设是,警察程序正义、分配正义和有限权力的观念对警察的合法化很重要。第二个假设是,对黑人社区监管不足和过度的看法,对该机构的非合法性也有影响,尤其是对那些认同“黑人的命也是命”运动的人来说。方法:于2020年6月对1500名美国居民进行横断面配额抽样调查。数据分析采用验证性因子分析、结构方程模型和潜在调节结构方程模型。结果:认为警察合法的人也倾向于相信警察以尊重和尊严对待人民,以公正的方式做出决定,公平地将有限的资源分配给社会各群体,并尊重他们合法权力的限度。此外,那些认为黑人社区监管不足或过度监管的人也倾向于质疑警察的合法性,尤其是那些认同“黑人的命也是命”运动的人。这些结果同样适用于黑人和白人研究参与者。结论:在研究期间,警务中的系统性种族主义可能以一种超越程序正义理论所关注的因素(如程序正义)的方式使该制度失去合法性。对于那些认同“黑人的命也重要”(Black Lives Matter)社会运动的人来说尤其如此,该运动在2020年引起了极大的关注。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
期刊最新文献
The state of open science in the field of psychology and law. The Miranda penalty: Inferring guilt from suspects' silence. Comparing predictive validity of Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory scores in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadian youth. Regional gender bias and year predict gender representation on civil trial teams. Lived experiences of bias in compensation and reintegration associated with false admissions of guilt.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1